[Types-sig] What is the Essence of Python?

[Edward Welbourne]

> This is the _mechanism_ of Python, but is it the _essence_?
well, it's *part of* the mechanism ... the part that grabs me.

The mechanism/essence distinction is one it's a lot easier to make in
the case of a story ... the closer one gets to the concrete world, the
harder it gets to make ... what is the essence of stone ? ... be
prepared to cope with the essence and mechanism of a real thing
overlapping rather more severely than arises for stories - especially
stories written by someone explicitly trying to put across a message.
In such cases, the essence may well *be* part of the mechanism.
And folk can't be relied on to agree about which part.

> ... those using Forth have added all sorts of ... extensions.
> My question is: Is that still Forth?

or, to put your original question (what is the essence) another way:
what is it about python that you can't change because if you did it
wouldn't be python any more ?

To me, the answer to that is

>> A bunch of protocols for manipulating namespaces and functions.

(albeit words like `sufficient', `good' and `well' need added in several
places there).

There are some important `pythonic theses' I saw (by Tim Peters, I
think) but I've lost the bookmark ... ask Tim Peters, they were good.
They might come closer to satisfying your criteria of essentiality.

	Eddy.